Recommended Posts

And the Boston Globe has one more take. Wow this is fun.I guess libs and Cons get to pick the one that makes them smile. For me that would be the Globe. Also a bit more reputable than FactBase who I believe included tweets in their matrix.

When the BostonGlobe scored several 2016 convention speeches Don beats out

Donald Trump: 7.7

Ivanka Trump: 7.6

Barack Obama at 7.6 Oops

Bill Clinton: 7.3 Oh my

Melania Trump: 6.9 English is her third language as I recall.

Chelsea Clinton: 6.3 Kids usually fall between the parents

Tim Kaine: 6

Elizabeth Warren: 6 Maybe english is a second language for this Native American

Of the 16 headline addresses the Globe analyzed — from the nominees, their families, running mates, and key figures in their party — the majority were spoken at a middle school level, according to the Flesch-Kincaid grade level test. The results showed US Senator Bernie Sanders delivered the highest-level speech, while Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton delivered the lowest-level speech of either convention.

Republicans spoke at a higher level, 8.1, than Democrats, who scored 7.4, the analysis showed.

Here’s a look at how the top speakers ranked on the grade-level test:

Republicans

Melania Trump: 6.9

Melania Trump, Donald Trump’s wife, at first exceeded expectations with her speech extolling her husband’s loyalty and patriotism. But it soon became apparent that she had copied some lines from Michelle Obama’s 2008 convention speech.

Her sentences on average had 15 words, and some of her longest words included “patriotism,” “determination,” and “underperforming.”

Ivanka Trump: 7.6

The Republican candidate’s daughter, who introduced Trump, painted her father as a successful businessman in a generally well-received speech. She averaged about 15.5 words per sentence, and one of her longer sentences was 40 words.

Donald Trump: 7.7

Trump conveyed a grim portrait of America in his speech accepting the Republican party’s presidential nomination. In previous off-the-cuff speeches, Trump has spoken at an elementary school level, but this time he was guided by a teleprompter. His sentences were 14 words long on average, and one of his longest words was “Americanism.”

Ted Cruz: 7.8

Cruz, in his controversial speech, refused to endorse his party’s nominee and told people to vote with their conscience. On average, Cruz’s sentences were 15.3 words, and some of his longest words included “emancipated” and “unprecedented.”

Tiffany Trump: 8.2

The recent University of Pennsylvania graduate briefly described memories of her father — such as his notes on her report cards in grade school — but, like other speakers, did not spend much time on Trump’s personal life. She averaged 19.9 words per sentence.

Mike Pence: 8.6

Pence, Indiana’s governor and Trump’s running mate, introduced himself to viewers and criticized Hillary Clinton for her foreign policies as secretary of state. He averaged 17.9 words per sentence, and one of his longest words was “unconstitutional.”

Donald Trump Jr: 8.7

The younger Donald Trump also, like many other speakers, described his father as a businessman and slammed the Democratic party’s policies over the past eight years. His sentences were, on average, 18.5 words, and one of his longest was 92 words.

Eric Trump: 9.6

The middle Trump son described how his father, a political outsider, defied predictions to become the Republican party nominee. Eric Trump averaged 19.3 words per sentence, and one of his longer words was “destabilization.”

Democrats

Hillary Clinton: 5.7

When accepting the Democratic nomination, Clinton sought to end the convention on a note of party unity and urged voters to reject the policies of her opponent, Donald Trump. America is at “a moment of reckoning,” she said.

Clinton averaged 12.8 words per sentence, and one of her longest words was “constitutional.”

Tim Kaine: 6

In his speech, Clinton’s running mate introduced himself to viewers as a humble man who fought for the rights of underprivileged people, peppering his speech with Spanish.

Kaine averaged 12.2 words per sentence, and some of his longest words included “Underprivileged” and “autobiography.”

Elizabeth Warren: 6

Warren, who was at onetime vetted as a potential Clinton running mate, denounced wealthy corporations and blasted Donald Trump as unfit for the presidency.

Warren averaged 11.4 words per sentence, and some of her longest words included “discrimination.” “regulatory,” and “university.”

Chelsea Clinton: 6.3

Clinton’s daughter portrayed a more personal side of her mother, describing scenes from her own childhood.

Clinton’s daughter averaged 14.4 words per sentence, and one of her longest sentences was 36 words.

Bill Clinton: 7.3

Clinton described how he met his wife at Yale Law School and spoke of her resilience and patience as she followed him to Arkansas so he could pursue his own political career.

Clinton’s average words per sentence was 16.5, and one of his longest words was “counterterrorism.”

Barack Obama at 7.6

Obama, passing the torch to a new Democratic standard bearer, reflected on his years in the White House. He also painted a positive picture of America and described Clinton’s tenacity throughout her political career.

Obama averaged 16 words per sentence, and one of his longest words was “quintessentially.”

So, President Trump read a prepared speech in which the average number of words per sentence, and “one of his longest words” were both larger than that of Hillary Clinton, and you’d like us to see that as evidence that he is “like, really smart”.

Covfefe!

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

WTF kind of answer is that?? So you don't think the need to rise up and overthrow a western gov't could never happen? Jesus H Keyrist - I would think after seeing what Trump is capable of... that all you libruls would be out joining the NRA and buying AR-15s to prepare for the pending collapse of society.

Of course any kind of bad thing could possibly happen. What gives me pause is when the fascists do take over, I fully expect the NRA to be their vanguard. I suspect Trump opponents are almost nonexistent in the ranks of the NRA.

Note guns <> freedom. AFAIK the North Vietnamese civilian population was about as fully armed as anyplace has ever been and no one threw their government out at gunpoint.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

So, including that scenario was a bit of bullshit. Glad you can admit that.

Since you seem so damned persistent in making me answer a question I never spoke about - “Yes, Europeans do enjoy some forms of protected speech. It is not the same as in the US, nor is it the same from one European nation to the next.”

Happy?

It was a reaction to Left Shift's bullshit distraction. Odd that stating such an obvious truth would provoke distractions. Thanks for acknowledging reality.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

So, President Trump read a prepared speech in which the average number of words per sentence, and “one of his longest words” were both larger than that of Hillary Clinton, and you’d like us to see that as evidence that he is “like, really smart”.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Indeed they do. Europeans are also known to speak, despite not having the same right to free speech the US has. Kind of the point, Dog.

Which does not entail the same right to free speech the US enjoys.

The point goes back to post 146 in which Raz'r said the following "Europeans don't have a "right" to free speech". I believe they do in fact have a right to free speech. Who do you agree with, Raz'r or me?

On free speech, the U.S. and Europe have also gone different ways. The German minister of justicethreatenedFacebook, Twitter and Alphabet Inc.’s Google search back in December, telling them they needed to move faster and better to remove hateful posts that violate German law. Now the minister is proposing a new law in fulfillment of the threat.

To Americans, the idea of the government forcing social media to censor posts may seem to resemble China’s internet censorship. Such legislation wouldn’t just be unconstitutional; it would be almost unthinkable.

Austriastrictly prohibits the public display and/or proliferation of all insignia/symbols, emblems, uniforms (full or partial), flags, etc., clearly associated with the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP, commonly known as the Nazi Party). There are legal exceptions for works of art (including books, films, theatre performances, computer games, and educational/memorial public exhibitions, etc.), these however do not apply if the respective work promotes National Socialism (as this is generally prohibited in Austria). The law has been amended to include commonly recognized replacements or slightly modified depictions of Nazi symbols. Violations of the Badges Act 1960 (Abzeichengesetz 1960), which prohibits the public display of Nazi symbols, are punishable by up to € 4000.- fine and up to 1 month imprisonment. However, if the violation is deemed an attempt to promote National Socialism, the Prohibition Act 1947 (Verbotsgesetz 1947) is applied, which allows for up to 10 years imprisonment.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Yes, I did. I don't consider a German minister issuing threats and proposing a new law to be evidence that Europeans don't enjoy a right to free speech.

"The German minister of justice threatened Facebook, Twitter and Alphabet Inc.’s Google search back in December, telling them they needed to move faster and better to remove hateful posts that violate German law. Now the minister is proposing a new law in fulfillment of the threat".

How about you Mad, do you agree with me that Europeans have free speech rights, or do you agree with Raz'r?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Yes, I did. I don't consider a German minister issuing threats and proposing a new law to be evidence that Europeans don't enjoy a right to free speech.

"The German minister of justice threatened Facebook, Twitter and Alphabet Inc.’s Google search back in December, telling them they needed to move faster and better to remove hateful posts that violate German law. Now the minister is proposing a new law in fulfillment of the threat".

How about you Mad, do you agree with me that Europeans have free speech rights, or do you agree with Raz'r?

European rights to free speech are more restricted than they are in the US, which is the point that Raz'r, myself and others trying to make.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

European rights to free speech are more restricted than they are in the US, which is the point that Raz'r, myself and others trying to make.

Would you agree with that?

No, Your question is flawed. Raz'r says "Europeans don't have a "right" to free speech". That's the comment I responded to, nothing at all to do with degrees, which no doubt vary from country to country. Why are you arguing with me, we clearly agree.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

No, Your question is flawed. Raz'r says "Europeans don't have a "right" to free speech". That's the comment I responded to, nothing at all to do with degrees, which no doubt vary from country to country. Why are you arguing with me, we clearly agree.

I’m not talking about Razrs question. I’m asking you a direct question, do you agree?

As is usual here, people seem happier to fight and twist words and appear to win, rather than actually discussing anything.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

So, President Trump read a prepared speech in which the average number of words per sentence, and “one of his longest words” were both larger than that of Hillary Clinton, and you’d like us to see that as evidence that he is “like, really smart”.

Covfefe!

Look, all I am doing is pointing out how silly it is to post things like GiGi did. The Globe chose convention speeches. Factbase cherry picked passages to make trump look dumb. This kind of attack on either side is plain childish. Which is why I began that post by saying either side can choose which propaganda they like.

You point out the obvious; that most political speeches have uncertain parentage. Candidates have speech writers.

Also the media and posters here get the meaning of the Flesch-Kincaid score wrong. It is not as they like to claim saying the speaker has the educational development of that grade. It instead is saying that the average person IN that grade will understand the speech. For example if you scored a book written for preschoolers it will intentionally use words preschoolers have in their vocabulary. You would not read a typical NYT Book Review to a preschooler and expect them to comprehend.

Political speeches are written for the masses where overly cerebral language might be counterproductive.

I have just one point. To be effective don't make your arguments against Trump so petty and obviously silly. They are too easy for me to obliterate as I did with the Globe article.

Link to post

Share on other sites

Yes, I did. I don't consider a German minister issuing threats and proposing a new law to be evidence that Europeans don't enjoy a right to free speech.

"The German minister of justice threatened Facebook, Twitter and Alphabet Inc.’s Google search back in December, telling them they needed to move faster and better to remove hateful posts that violate German law. Now the minister is proposing a new law in fulfillment of the threat".

How about you Mad, do you agree with me that Europeans have free speech rights, or do you agree with Raz'r?

So - if it's not an infringement to free speech, what is it?

1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

No, Your question is flawed. Raz'r says "Europeans don't have a "right" to free speech". That's the comment I responded to, nothing at all to do with degrees, which no doubt vary from country to country. Why are you arguing with me, we clearly agree.

I'd like you to point out this "right" that you claim exists. The fact that gov't can freely pass laws to restrict speech means it's not a "right" in the sense of the US definition. Just because they haven't passed a law, doesn't mean they cannot. That's the definition of a "right" - again, in the US sense of the word. And a signatory to the UN rights convention? Is that a limit on what a country can do? really? YOU are calling up the UN? YCMTSU

I can easily point out the right in the US. It's in the constitution. (In case you've forgotten)

Of the 16 headline addresses the Globe analyzed — from the nominees, their families, running mates, and key figures in their party — the majority were spoken at a middle school level, according to the Flesch-Kincaid grade level test.

Judging from election results I'd say they were still speaking over the heads of the electorate.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

And the Boston Globe has one more take. Wow this is fun.I guess libs and Cons get to pick the one that makes them smile. For me that would be the Globe. Also a bit more reputable than FactBase who I believe included tweets in their matrix.

When the BostonGlobe scored several 2016 convention speeches Don beats out

Donald Trump: 7.7

Ivanka Trump: 7.6

Barack Obama at 7.6 Oops

Bill Clinton: 7.3 Oh my

Melania Trump: 6.9 English is her third language as I recall.

Chelsea Clinton: 6.3 Kids usually fall between the parents

Tim Kaine: 6

Elizabeth Warren: 6 Maybe english is a second language for this Native American

Of the 16 headline addresses the Globe analyzed — from the nominees, their families, running mates, and key figures in their party — the majority were spoken at a middle school level, according to the Flesch-Kincaid grade level test. The results showed US Senator Bernie Sanders delivered the highest-level speech, while Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton delivered the lowest-level speech of either convention.

Republicans spoke at a higher level, 8.1, than Democrats, who scored 7.4, the analysis showed.

Here’s a look at how the top speakers ranked on the grade-level test:

Republicans

Melania Trump: 6.9

Melania Trump, Donald Trump’s wife, at first exceeded expectations with her speech extolling her husband’s loyalty and patriotism. But it soon became apparent that she had copied some lines from Michelle Obama’s 2008 convention speech.

Her sentences on average had 15 words, and some of her longest words included “patriotism,” “determination,” and “underperforming.”

Ivanka Trump: 7.6

The Republican candidate’s daughter, who introduced Trump, painted her father as a successful businessman in a generally well-received speech. She averaged about 15.5 words per sentence, and one of her longer sentences was 40 words.

Donald Trump: 7.7

Trump conveyed a grim portrait of America in his speech accepting the Republican party’s presidential nomination. In previous off-the-cuff speeches, Trump has spoken at an elementary school level, but this time he was guided by a teleprompter. His sentences were 14 words long on average, and one of his longest words was “Americanism.”

Ted Cruz: 7.8

Cruz, in his controversial speech, refused to endorse his party’s nominee and told people to vote with their conscience. On average, Cruz’s sentences were 15.3 words, and some of his longest words included “emancipated” and “unprecedented.”

Tiffany Trump: 8.2

The recent University of Pennsylvania graduate briefly described memories of her father — such as his notes on her report cards in grade school — but, like other speakers, did not spend much time on Trump’s personal life. She averaged 19.9 words per sentence.

Mike Pence: 8.6

Pence, Indiana’s governor and Trump’s running mate, introduced himself to viewers and criticized Hillary Clinton for her foreign policies as secretary of state. He averaged 17.9 words per sentence, and one of his longest words was “unconstitutional.”

Donald Trump Jr: 8.7

The younger Donald Trump also, like many other speakers, described his father as a businessman and slammed the Democratic party’s policies over the past eight years. His sentences were, on average, 18.5 words, and one of his longest was 92 words.

Eric Trump: 9.6

The middle Trump son described how his father, a political outsider, defied predictions to become the Republican party nominee. Eric Trump averaged 19.3 words per sentence, and one of his longer words was “destabilization.”

Democrats

Hillary Clinton: 5.7

When accepting the Democratic nomination, Clinton sought to end the convention on a note of party unity and urged voters to reject the policies of her opponent, Donald Trump. America is at “a moment of reckoning,” she said.

Clinton averaged 12.8 words per sentence, and one of her longest words was “constitutional.”

Tim Kaine: 6

In his speech, Clinton’s running mate introduced himself to viewers as a humble man who fought for the rights of underprivileged people, peppering his speech with Spanish.

Kaine averaged 12.2 words per sentence, and some of his longest words included “Underprivileged” and “autobiography.”

Elizabeth Warren: 6

Warren, who was at onetime vetted as a potential Clinton running mate, denounced wealthy corporations and blasted Donald Trump as unfit for the presidency.

Warren averaged 11.4 words per sentence, and some of her longest words included “discrimination.” “regulatory,” and “university.”

Chelsea Clinton: 6.3

Clinton’s daughter portrayed a more personal side of her mother, describing scenes from her own childhood.

Clinton’s daughter averaged 14.4 words per sentence, and one of her longest sentences was 36 words.

Bill Clinton: 7.3

Clinton described how he met his wife at Yale Law School and spoke of her resilience and patience as she followed him to Arkansas so he could pursue his own political career.

Clinton’s average words per sentence was 16.5, and one of his longest words was “counterterrorism.”

Barack Obama at 7.6

Obama, passing the torch to a new Democratic standard bearer, reflected on his years in the White House. He also painted a positive picture of America and described Clinton’s tenacity throughout her political career.

Obama averaged 16 words per sentence, and one of his longest words was “quintessentially.”

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I'd like you to point out this "right" that you claim exists. The fact that gov't can freely pass laws to restrict speech means it's not a "right" in the sense of the US definition. Just because they haven't passed a law, doesn't mean they cannot. That's the definition of a "right" - again, in the US sense of the word. And a signatory to the UN rights convention? Is that a limit on what a country can do? really? YOU are calling up the UN? YCMTSU

I can easily point out the right in the US. It's in the constitution. (In case you've forgotten)

That European speech rights can be revoked or modified at some point down the road does not mean they don't exist. Neither does it distinguish them from American speech rights. Speech rights are enshrined in the UN declaration of human rights, the EU charter and in the constitutions of European countries. Freedom of speech is a right in Europe, it just is. Its stunning that you didn't know it. Have you ever been to Europe?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Look, all I am doing is pointing out how silly it is to post things like GiGi did. The Globe chose convention speeches. Factbase cherry picked passages to make trump look dumb. This kind of attack on either side is plain childish. Which is why I began that post by saying either side can choose which propaganda they like.

You point out the obvious; that most political speeches have uncertain parentage. Candidates have speech writers.

Also the media and posters here get the meaning of the Flesch-Kincaid score wrong. It is not as they like to claim saying the speaker has the educational development of that grade. It instead is saying that the average person IN that grade will understand the speech. For example if you scored a book written for preschoolers it will intentionally use words preschoolers have in their vocabulary. You would not read a typical NYT Book Review to a preschooler and expect them to comprehend.

Political speeches are written for the masses where overly cerebral language might be counterproductive.

I have just one point. To be effective don't make your arguments against Trump so petty and obviously silly. They are too easy for me to obliterate as I did with the Globe article.

Sorry, that should be two points. Point two; GiGi is an idiot.

"I want your point to be meaningless. So I'm going to post something actually meaningless and then use false equivalency to compare the two."

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

That European speech rights can be revoked or modified at some point down the road does not mean they don't exist. Neither does it distinguish them from American speech rights. Speech rights are enshrined in the UN declaration of human rights, the EU charter and in the constitutions of European countries. Freedom of speech is a right in Europe, it just is. Its stunning that you didn't know it. Have you ever been to Europe?

Not in the context of US First Amendment it doesn't. If it did, you could hold nazi rallies, etc. It can't, and you've got blinders on if you don't see it.

BTW - you seem to think I'm inferring that it's "Bad" - I'm not. It works for them.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Back to the book - at the point I am right now all thoughts of legality and propriety in the Trump campaign are considered not worth a mention because they won't win and no one will care. At this point it is a ratings stunt for Trump's TV shows. Then they win and are stunned+horrified. More to come, but we pretty much all knew this, right?

Back to the book - at the point I am right now all thoughts of legality and propriety in the Trump campaign are considered not worth a mention because they won't win and no one will care. At this point it is a ratings stunt for Trump's TV shows. Then they win and are stunned+horrified. More to come, but we pretty much all knew this, right?

I don't remember which pundit first suggested that, but it was plain as the nose on my face, when I read it in an Op-Ed somewhere.

The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Walmart doesn't discriminate, if a person says they need the scooter, they get the scooter. If you happen to see an old disabled person hobbling around pushing a shopping cart, that's the result. Fair or not.

When I was going through my hip surgeries that was one of my biggest pet peeves. Getting to the store literally unable to walk, hobbling up to the door only to find all the scooters out. Then when limping around on crutches or using the manual wheelchair w basket, going past some fat bastard under 40 cruising around w no care in the world all fat and happy. That and finding the damn things unplugged and uncharged.

Having just spent a month back in the US, I was shocked at how fat the vast majority of people were. Even fit and slim strippers were the exception rather than the norm. The Union must have made FUPAs and C-section scars a mandatory entry point for hiring.

Come on Jeff, I would expect more from you... The economy is rolling because of your guy, the jobless rate is tiny, believe me, Those strippers, well the good looking ones, got real jobs or are working at the high end private clubs you are not allowed to know about, and the rest, well they deserve to be working at the dives. Trickle down man, trickle down...

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

When I was going through my hip surgeries that was one of my biggest pet peeves. Getting to the store literally unable to walk, hobbling up to the door only to find all the scooters out. Then when limping around on crutches or using the manual wheelchair w basket, going past some fat bastard under 40 cruising around w no care in the world all fat and happy. That and finding the damn things unplugged and uncharged.

Yep, my brother in law had a stroke and it left him unable to walk long distances. Whenever I took him to Walmart that was a common problem, some people like to ride and don't consider the handicap for a moment and neither does Walmart.

Yep, my brother in law had a stroke and it left him unable to walk long distances. Whenever I took him to Walmart that was a common problem, some people like to ride and don't consider the handicap for a moment and neither does Walmart.

They should be required to show a handicapped parking tag to get a scooter.

One consolation if you see some young lard ass using one - they ain't gonna make it to retirement.

Share on other sites

The point goes back to post 146 in which Raz'r said the following "Europeans don't have a "right" to free speech". I believe they do in fact have a right to free speech. Who do you agree with, Raz'r or me?

They don't have a right to free speech. There is a difference between some being able to do something and them having the right to do it. Raz'r is correct. You are not.

Share on other sites

That European speech rights can be revoked or modified at some point down the road does not mean they don't exist. Neither does it distinguish them from American speech rights.

Actually, it does. If the government can revoke them, they are not a right - they are a privilege. As such, the current privileges some parts of Europe have regarding free speech are very much distinguished from the American right to free speech.

2 hours ago, Dog said:

Speech rights are enshrined in the UN declaration of human rights, the EU charter and in the constitutions of European countries. Freedom of speech is a right in Europe, it just is. Its stunning that you didn't know it. Have you ever been to Europe?

Read it again. The speech that is guaranteed by the declaration of human rights is not "free speech". There is a difference between speech and free speech, which is why we add the word "free" in the first place.

Share on other sites

Actually, it does. If the government can revoke them, they are not a right - they are a privilege. As such, the current privileges some parts of Europe have regarding free speech are very much distinguished from the American right to free speech.

Read it again. The speech that is guaranteed by the declaration of human rights is not "free speech". There is a difference between speech and free speech, which is why we add the word "free" in the first place.

Fuck, you're are really bad at this.

It's pretty damn hard to have a discussion with your counter-party can't even understand the basics....

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I did inquire about the policy and was told they do it to avoid being charged with discriminatory practices. All I see on those scooters are lard asses, at least where I live.

Well, the silver lining is that some stores actually give a shit. Trader Joes always had one and they were semi fast and readily available. Costco as well. Target and Walmart always sucked. Back to normal now, but still stop to plug the damn things in. The me first attitude of most of the people in this world really needs to change.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Actually, it does. If the government can revoke them, they are not a right - they are a privilege. As such, the current privileges some parts of Europe have regarding free speech are very much distinguished from the American right to free speech.

Read it again. The speech that is guaranteed by the declaration of human rights is not "free speech". There is a difference between speech and free speech, which is why we add the word "free" in the first place.

Fuck, you're are really bad at this.

Bullshit...There is a long and sordid history of governments revoking rights.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

That European speech rights can be revoked or modified at some point down the road does not mean they don't exist. Neither does it distinguish them from American speech rights. Speech rights are enshrined in the UN declaration of human rights, the EU charter and in the constitutions of European countries. Freedom of speech is a right in Europe, it just is. Its stunning that you didn't know it. Have you ever been to Europe?

You are being a pedantic twit. Before you go any further, please define free speech. Because you keep saying it is in the EU charter, etc. You say the details don't matter that both the US and Europe have free speech. Which isn't true. Both the US and Europe have restrictions on speech, you can't say just anything. In that context, there are far more restrictions on speech in some countries Europe than there are in the US. You can argue all you want but until the terms are defined, the argument is useless. Like pretty much all of your arguments.

You used to actually contribute to a discussion at times. I don't know it it's your disappointment about Trump or what, but now you are just another annoying Right Wing troll. We really don't need yet another one of those.

Bullshit...There is a long and sordid history of governments revoking rights.

Then they are not rights. Rights cannot be legally be revoked, merely illegally ignored by the government.

When a European country, for example, goes from allowing to prohibiting Nazi rallies - they are revoking a privilege they used to extend to their citizens in regards to that free speech. This revocation is legal and in accordance with the UN view on what is stated in the human rights declaration, as they have stated in the past.

When a US state tries to prohibit Nazi rallies, this breaches the US right to free speech and therefore the government's prohibition was never legal regardless of how they enact it or try to enforce it. They cannot legally revoke the right to free speech and this has been confirmed by the SCOTUS view on what is stated in the US Constitution, as they have ruled in the past.

Europeans do not have a right to free speech. The US does. You are wrong. Raz'r is right.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

That European speech rights can be revoked or modified at some point down the road does not mean they don't exist. Neither does it distinguish them from American speech rights. Speech rights are enshrined in the UN declaration of human rights, the EU charter and in the constitutions of European countries. Freedom of speech is a right in Europe, it just is. Its stunning that you didn't know it. Have you ever been to Europe?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

That European speech rights can be revoked or modified at some point down the road does not mean they don't exist. Neither does it distinguish them from American speech rights. Speech rights are enshrined in the UN declaration of human rights, the EU charter and in the constitutions of European countries. Freedom of speech is a right in Europe, it just is. Its stunning that you didn't know it. Have you ever been to Europe?

Have you? And that means more than a guided tour trip with your tour number pinned on your chest for a 3 week whistle top trip.

Share on other sites

Have you? And that means more than a guided tour trip with your tour number pinned on your chest for a 3 week whistle top trip.

oh, to answer Dog's question: I've lost count of the number of times to London, Paris, Amsterdam and Dublin (my favorite of the 3) (Been to 37 countries so far, I need to up the numbers.)

Also Frankfurt, Munich, Cannes 3 times, Vienna (and the Pope was there at the same time, so traffic was a bit unwieldy), a tour of the Bavarian countryside, 2 weeks with the family from Piza to Paris - 7 days in Tuscany, then a drive up the Amalfi Coast, overnight in Cannes, drive to Lyon, the Paris.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

When I was going through my hip surgeries that was one of my biggest pet peeves. Getting to the store literally unable to walk, hobbling up to the door only to find all the scooters out. Then when limping around on crutches or using the manual wheelchair w basket, going past some fat bastard under 40 cruising around w no care in the world all fat and happy. That and finding the damn things unplugged and uncharged.

Yep, my brother in law had a stroke and it left him unable to walk long distances. Whenever I took him to Walmart that was a common problem, some people like to ride and don't consider the handicap for a moment and neither does Walmart.

The reason they give you a crutch is so you can knock the selfish fat fucks off the cart with it.

You all are doing it wrong.

-DSK

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I usually request transportation when I am at a big airport. I don't walk real well, especially if I've been on a plane for 8 hours or so, and in airports like Frankfurt Main or London Heathrow, you have to do some serious walking. Last year I went through Heathrow and there was a sign listing the walking times to the various gates. For my gate it said 20 minutes! Sometimes it is a wheelchair or some sort of rolling chair. Sometimes it;s one of those golf carts. On the golf cart you often get to share the ride. Almost every time it is a very overweight person. One advantage is you get to go to a special line for cutoms and imigration and also the security check. No lines, no waiting.

Share on other sites

Huge difference between word counting a professionally written speech and evaluating a person's extemporaneous comments.

Follow the damn thread. This was a sarcastic parry to the stupid "Trumped" up list GiGi posted.

But don't fret I had to explain it slowly for Bus Driver too. Here let me show you what I wrote for him.

Look, all I am doing is pointing out how silly it is to post things like GiGi did. The Globe chose convention speeches. Factbase cherry picked passages to make trump look dumb. This kind of attack on either side is plain childish. Which is why I began that post by saying either side can choose which propaganda they like.

You point out the obvious; that most political speeches have uncertain parentage. Candidates have speech writers.

Also the media and posters here get the meaning of the Flesch-Kincaid score wrong. It is not as they like to claim saying the speaker has the educational development of that grade. It instead is saying that the average person IN that grade will understand the speech. For example if you scored a book written for preschoolers it will intentionally use words preschoolers have in their vocabulary. You would not read a typical NYT Book Review to a preschooler and expect them to comprehend.

Political speeches are written for the masses where overly cerebral language might be counterproductive.

I have just one point. To be effective don't make your arguments against Trump so petty and obviously silly. They are too easy for me to obliterate as I did with the Globe article.